The proposed Missouri Medicaid expansion has reached the end of the line, at least for this year. When Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon announced he would pursue the expansion after last November’s election, I expressed my substantial reservations about both the cost and effectiveness of the program. And I repeated those reservations on television, on the radio, in print, before audiences, before the Missouri Legislature and on our blog again, and again, and again . . .

Suffice to say, I think that Missouri not expanding a broken Medicaid program is a victory for Missouri taxpayers. Kudos to the legislature for its steadfast opposition to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and support for reforms that will actually help to make Missourians healthier. Unfortunately, the ACA just isn’t that vehicle.

The Missouri Legislature has embarrassed itself once again on the tax credit issue, and this year’s failure to protect taxpayers from out-of-control tax credit spending was particularly excruciating. After the House and Senate conferenced and produced a suboptimal, but passable, tax credit compromise last Thursday, the legislation fell to a filibuster in the Senate on Friday — the last day of the session. The bill had both good and bad elements to it, capping and eliminating some credits (the good) while creating and extending others (the bad). In the net, it would have been an important first round of tax credit reform, albeit a small step.

But even that couldn’t get through the legislature. Like a college sophomore starting an essay the night before it’s due, the legislature produced tax credit legislation at the latest possible moment with the smallest margin for error available. In school, you don’t get a passing grade for “I started late and my computer crashed!” or “My dog ate my homework!” You don’t get an “A” for “effort.” You get an “F” for “failure.”

Missouri’s heavy use of tax credits encourages government to pick winners and losers in our economy, leading to rampant abuse, distorted economic priorities, and tightening budgetary realities. It’s maddening that practically nothing has gotten done on tax credits that have sapped the state’s coffers in recent years — and whose consequences led to more than $400 million in economic development tax credit issuances in fiscal year 2012 alone. Let’s be blunt here: the legislative dysfunction on the tax credit issue is an unmitigated state disgrace. This year I was hopeful that the legislature had finally gotten past its dark tax credit days, whose depths were deeply plumbed with 2011’s Aerotropolis boondoggle.

But apparently not. As someone who takes notes on the floor debates in the state House and Senate, I cannot tell you how many times I heard a legislator say “I don’t agree with tax credits, but . . .,” and then go on to explain why their pet tax credit needed to be extended or created. (This is especially common in the House.) Bona fide tax credit reform supporters and opponents can disagree civilly, but I have little tolerance or patience for policymakers who are all hat and no cattle on this issue — happy to carve out special tax credits for their special groups as they blithely gore other credits. That’s the worst kind of hypocrisy. Sen. Jolie Justus, a tax credit supporter, was right on Friday to criticize such behavior from the floor of the Senate, and I’ve independently noted the same sort of behavior Justus observed.

The legislative intransigence on tax credits is stomach churning. Coupled with the governor’s leadership void on basically every issue, the legislature’s inaction on tax credit reform is a shameful low note of the session. Taxpayers deserve better than this shabby treatment.

In April, I testified before the Missouri Legislature about the importance of reaffirming the free speech rights of government employees. Senate Bill 29, which changes how union dues are collected and are used for political purposes, just passed the Missouri House with an 85-69 vote. The legislation’s next stop is the governor’s desk.

Currently, Missouri requires public union employees to opt-out of having dues money removed from their paychecks that could be used for political objectives with which the employee may disagree. Under the reform, union members would presumptively keep those dollars unless they opt-in to paying for the union’s political activities. That is a better system that supports employees’ free speech rights.

I am glad to see it get through the legislature, and I look forward to seeing whether the governor agrees that union members’ money is their money first, not the union’s. Kudos, Missouri Legislature.

The Volunteer Health Services Act has passed in the Missouri Legislature. If the governor signs it into law, the legislation would allow out-of-state medical professionals to easily provide free, charitable care to Missouri’s neediest — an activity that Missouri license law currently complicates. It is an issue I have talked about a lot, both this year and last. I am glad the bill gained the legislature’s approval.

Some bills are legitimately tough calls, but the Volunteer Health Services Act is, I think, a no-brainer. Missouri should be letting people help people, and in this case, the helpers are highly trained for the purpose. The bill’s passage is a great call. Kudos, Missouri Legislature.

The Missouri Legislature has passed arguably the state’s biggest tax reform in years, the “Broad-Based Tax Relief Act of 2013,” and sent it to the governor for his signature. Today, the Missouri House passed the Senate Substitute for House Bill 253 with a 103-51 vote. The bill reduces the individual income tax slightly, but more importantly, it cuts the corporate income tax by almost half over the course of about 10 years and the tax on other businesses by half over five.

As we have discussed — especially in the past few months —  a state focus on business taxation reform is well-warranted, not only because taxes on businesses tend to negatively affect growth, but because Missouri risks being left behind by its pro-growth neighbors if it does not act. I expect Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon will sign the bill, but even if he vetoes it, there may be sufficient support in both the state House and Senate to override him. Whatever the path to its final enactment, this tax reform is the right thing for a state in need of an economic course change.

As the original HB 253 demonstrated, there was considerable support for deep business tax cuts for Missouri’s companies. That bill would have cut taxes in half for all businesses over about a five-year period, including the taxes on C-Corporations — an excellent, literature-responsive idea. To be clear, the corporate income tax reduction schedule the legislature passed should have matched that for pass-through entities at five years, not 10.

Yet, that should not take away from the fact that this tax relief measure is a good first step toward instituting even better tax policy in Missouri in the years ahead. Kudos to all who worked to get this over the finish line.

Earlier this week, Chief Executive magazine issued its annual “Best & Worst States for Business” survey, which asked business leaders nationwide how they view states in key policies areas such as taxation, regulation, quality of workforce, and living environment. As with most surveys, your mileage will vary based on what you think of the survey’s methodology.

Yet, it is worth noting that the business leaders who responded to Chief Executive did not hold Missouri in especially high regard. The Show-Me State ranked 31st in business friendliness compared to the rest of the United States. Lucky for us, our neighbor Illinois came in at an abysmal 48th place; unlucky for us, Kansas came in at a comfortable 19th. (Incidentally, the Chief Executive survey results resemble the Kauffman Foundation’s findings last month on business friendliness.)

Houston, we have a problem.

Speaking of Texas, there is one other thing worth noting about Chief Executive’s survey — what the states in the top five have in common. Three of the top five states — Texas (first place), Florida (second place), and Tennessee (fourth place) — do not have an individual income tax. Indiana (fifth place) just enacted legislation to cut its income tax; North Carolina (third place) is pushing hard to reduce its income taxes as well.

I have talked before about the Growth Corridor developing in the Midwest. Missouri should cut income taxes of all sorts, not only because they harm growth in a vacuum, but also because we are surrounded by neighbors who are enacting pro-growth policies in an effort to grow their states’ businesses . . . and to attract ours. Kansas may be the most visible example these days of a state’s tax policy posing a threat to Missouri’s economic future, but it is not just about Kansas. It is about the whole region.

We cannot wait any longer to start cutting these taxes. Missourians need tax relief, and they need it now.

A quick “kudos” goes out to the Missouri House Health Policy and Rules Committees, both of which in the last week voted to send the Volunteer Health Services Act, or VHSA, to the full House for a final vote. The Senate passed the bill earlier this year, meaning that if the legislation passes without any amendments through the House, it will go to the governor, who I expect will sign it.

I have talked about the VHSA many times in the past. Missouri should not stand in the way of doctors from other states who want to provide free health services to our citizens, and it is heartening to see such a simple reform to our licensing laws so close to being enacted.

In Part Four, I wrote about how the number of jobs in Saint Louis’ “central core” fell dramatically in the last decade. The Brookings Institution found that in the 3 miles surrounding Saint Louis’ business district, the city had lost almost 28,000 jobs from 2000 to 2010. Of the job growth the region did experience, those jobs predominantly materialized far outside the city center.

Kansas City feels Saint Louis’ pain. Like Saint Louis, Kansas City has undertaken a series of urban redevelopment plans of its own that, again, have focused on attracting the “hip” class to the city center, oftentimes with significant tax incentives. And as has become commonplace, the hip have come, but the jobs have not.

A report released [...] by the Brookings Institution said that in 2010 just 16.9 percent of the area’s jobs were in the core, defined as within three miles of Kansas City’s downtown. That’s down from 20.5 percent in 2000.

Dragged down by the Great Recession, the raw number of jobs in the central core also shrank from 180,000 in 2000 to 140,000 in 2010, according to the study.

For areas between 3 and 10 miles from the city center, the number of jobs also dropped. But between 10 and 35 miles from the central business district? As in Saint Louis, the total number of jobs rose — and in Kansas City’s case, they rose significantly.

The chart below, created by the Kansas City Star, tells the decade-long tale.

Indeed, all of the regions in Kansas City were buffeted by the Great Recession. Notably, the 10- to 35-mile band was still shy of its intra-decade high as of 2010. But the downtown Kansas City job figures tell a pretty unambiguous tale: jobs have been falling in Kansas City’s central core. Like Saint Louis, population in downtown Kansas City rose over the decade, but . . . (emphasis mine)

. . . new residents hadn’t translated directly to job creation in the core by the time the Brookings information was compiled.

Since then, “we’re seeing some small businesses locate in the Crossroads and the like, but they don’t employ that many,” said Jeff Pinkerton, economist at the Mid-America Regional Council. “And we haven’t had any major employer move downtown recently.

“The fact is that jobs follow rooftops, and housing is growing in the suburbs.”

As has been explained before, “the hip crowd” does not typically have much in the way of jobs coattails. Unfortunately, it seems, Saint Louis and Kansas City know this all too well.

As I have reiterated many times during this series, Missouri’s taxpayers have ample reason to be skeptical of whether “hip” developments, often fueled by tax incentives, are producing valuable dividends to the state and region. But let’s focus on just Saint Louis’ downtown area for a moment longer. As I observed in Part Three, Saint Louis’ downtown population rose from about 4,000 people in 2000 to about 7,000 people in 2010. But what happened to the net number of jobs downtown during that time?

In a study published last week, the Brookings Institution found that Saint Louis’ “central core” — which Brookings defines as the 3-mile radius around a city’s central business district — lost almost 28,000 jobs between 2000 and 2010. That is the equivalent of almost one-in-six jobs disappearing from the downtown area in one decade. Areas just a bit further outside the central core fared similarly. Between 3 and 10 miles from the city center, the Saint Louis region lost almost 39,000 jobs.

The only area that saw growth in Saint Louis was the 10- to 35-mile ring, which gained a paltry 572 jobs. The math is not in hip developments’ favor, despite what some consultants might say.

But the math also makes another conclusion inevitable: that Saint Louis’ central core — the area where the “hip” development disproportionately predominates — lost employment market share to its outer-ring rival between 2000 and 2010. Today, only 13 percent of Saint Louis’ regional jobs are in the central core, about half the national average; meanwhile, more than 60 percent of the region’s jobs are between 10 and 35 miles away, compared to the national average of 43 percent. Saint Louis is now the fifth-most decentralized city in the country in terms of regional job distribution — behind only Detroit, Chicago, Atlanta, and Philadelphia.

While the resident population in downtown Saint Louis has grown, the number of jobs in the 3-mile ring around Saint Louis’ central business district has actually fallen. And again, all the while, the overall population of Saint Louis city has declined. This does not sound like an urban development plan that is working. City centers were built to facilitate commerce. In Saint Louis, that commerce appears to be bleeding out into some of the furthermost stretches of its region.

But Saint Louis is not the only major Missouri city experiencing a job drain. Stay tuned.

Let’s cut to the chase. Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone magazine has jumped on the American Federation of Teachers “blacklist bandwagon.” As it turns out, the Show-Me Institute’s work on public union pensions and public union policy generally has made us a national bête noire of the Left.

Of course, Taibbi knows his role in that game and plays it as best he can. But I would like to know his source on this nifty factoid (emphasis mine):

Dan Loeb isn’t the only hedge fund manager aligned with groups like Students First, the Manhattan Institute, or local anti-benefit lobbies like the Show-Me Institute (created by billionaire Rex Sinquefield to campaign against defined benefit plans in Missouri) . . .

Oh? And what actual evidence, Matt, do you have for the assertion that the Show-Me Institute — now close to a decade old — was founded for the purpose of “campaign[ing] against defined benefit plans”?

We’re waiting.

But while we wait, Matt, I did want to tell you that I found your investment advice remarkable, compelling, and ironic (emphasis mine):

A lot of teachers and public sector workers would do just as well to just dump their money on some plain-vanilla S&P index and not pay obscene tax-sheltered fees[...]. Not only would the returns probably be a wash or close to it, but retirees at least wouldn’t be stripping themselves of their biggest asset – the political power their money represents.

That is excellent advice. And you know who helped invent the first S&P index fund? Rex Sinquefield, of course. But you knew that, right?

Right?

It seems James Shuls’ ongoing efforts to make our children’s education better and Andrew Biggs’ report on Missouri’s public pension liabilities have struck a sour chord with the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), a nationwide public employee union. How sour? So sour that the AFT named the Show-Me Institute on a “blacklist” meant to attack supporters of education and pension reform (emphasis mine).

The union report says it wants pension trustees to “take into account certain collateral factors, such as a manager’s position on collective bargaining, privatization [read: vouchers] or proposals to discontinue providing benefits through defined benefit plans.”

The report adds the lovely threat that “The American Federation of Teachers is committed to shining a bright light on organizations that harm public sector workers, especially when those organizations are financed by individuals who earn their money from the deferred wages of our teachers.”

The report goes on to list StudentsFirst, the Show Me Institute and the Manhattan Institute as special bêtes noires that promote school and pension reform. And it helpfully lists no fewer than 34 funds whose “directors, managers, advisors and executives” have dared to support reform organizations. The funds on the blackball list include such well-known names as Appaloosa Management, Elliott Management, Khronos, KKR and Tudor Investment.

The AFT’s national report also appears to have been coordinated with a local AFT affiliate. Today, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch published a letter to the editor by Byron Clemens that assailed the Show-Me Institute and the pension work of Mike Podgursky, a Show-Me Institute board member and economist. Yet despite all of Clemens’ supposed sleuthing, the author ironically failed to reveal that he . . . is a “union organizer” with AFT. For a letter so intent on establishing “links,” it is curious Clemens did not reveal his own.

But what the AFT and Clemens did get right, explicitly and implicitly, is that if public unions such as the AFT stand in the way of reforms that would protect taxpayers and help kids, they should absolutely worry about the threat the Show-Me Institute poses to them. And to be clear, we will, with great pleasure, continue the fervent, methodical, and fact-based research that has raised their ire.

Today, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch published a commentary by Stephen Acree, president and CEO of the Regional Housing and Community Development Alliance (RHCDA). The editorial extolled the virtues of the historic preservation tax credit under the headline “St. Louis: Rebuilt with the historic tax credit.” Setting aside the demonstrable absurdity of that proposition, I think it is worthwhile to highlight an important fact-nugget that did not find its way into Acree’s piece — namely, that the RHCDA acts as a consultant for the historic preservation tax credit, as well as other tax credits. From the organization’s website (emphasis mine):

We provide Residential Development Consulting services to both non-profit and for-profit organizations. We provide expertise in structuring developments utilizing a variety of public and private resources, including federal CDBG and HOME funds; tax-exempt bond financing; and low income housing tax credit, historic tax credit and new markets tax credit transactions.

That probably should have come up at least in the author’s bio. Unfortunately, it did not.

While we are discussing the RHCDA’s portfolio of tax credit expertise, it should be noted that the Associated Press made this revelation about the New Markets tax credit program just this weekend (emphasis mine):

Missouri has authorized more than $120 million of tax credits through a program intended to entice wealthy investors to pour money into businesses in low-income areas, but the initiative has yet to produce even half the jobs that were anticipated, according to state figures provided to The Associated Press….

At the request of the AP, the state Department of Economic Development compiled a spreadsheet documenting every New Markets tax credit that has been authorized. The 9,679 “anticipated jobs” associated with the tax credits far exceeds the 823 “actual new jobs” and 3,141 “jobs retained” under the program, though those numbers could continue to rise.

This “tax credit job-shortfall” storyline is not unique. Indeed, the AP report on the New Markets program follows earlier, similar revelations about the Quality Jobs tax credit program, which I testified about earlier this year. In the case of the Quality Jobs program, 45,000 jobs were promised; according to state records, only about 7,000 jobs were created in reality. As I said then (emphasis mine):

In practice, there is no particular consequence to the state and its public officials claiming that new jobs will be coming, even if the jobs never materialize. That may explain the difference between the number of jobs state officials promise when a tax credit project is announced and the number of jobs actually created when the project winds down. To some officials, big tax credit promises look better than small tax credit promises, even if those promises do not pan out.

The same can be said of the consultants who go to bat for these credits. Acree even has the audacity to claim that the historic preservation tax credit is “Missouri’s most useful economy-boosting program.” A program that returns 23 cents on the dollar is our “most useful economy-boosting program”?! Does this suggestion horrify anyone else?

I have a better idea: Cut taxes with the money instead and let taxpayers invest their money themselves in their own businesses. Better yet, eliminate a tax or two instead of underwriting the projects of the politically well-connected. Missouri’s most useful economy-boosting program is the hard work and innovation of its taxpayers, not some bloated, special-interest government handout.

As story after tax credit story bears out, tax credit proponents/consultants have a terrible track record of substantive, sustainable, and enduring successes. The historic preservation tax credit is a central player in this ongoing, budget-busting, decade-long state development debacle. Suffice to say, I am looking forward to the findings of the state audit of the program, due to come out later this year.